3 ms·

>Keep more users within their controlled environments rather than officially navigating to a real website elsewhere But that seems to be exactly what it does:

>Keep more users within their controlled environments rather than officially navigating to a real website elsewhere But that seems to be exactly what it does: look at the image at the top of the article, the address bar clearly changes to the portal-target's location. I think that's what they mean by "can be navigated into".

Spivak 7y ago
Right but rather than making a seamless transition between pages they made it a subpage of the parent. Having built-in page previews is actually a useful feature but without the other useful feature of "play video" -> "click video to open page" -> "video continues playing while the rest of the real page renders around it" -> "you are now really on the other page with no connection to the previous page" it seems like the business motivation for this was to embed more content in Google Search while keeping Google branding in the background.
- ddalex 7y ago
  This. It can allow you to see the google results and navigate from them seamlessly without actually leaving the top-level domain. It effectively captures the entire audience. There will be no more Internet, it's going to be a Google portal (like AOL) with Google keywords, and will "borrow" the content from everybody else.
  - co0nsta 7y ago
    How do you define "actually leaving"? Because after navigating to the portal, it occupies the whole viewport and becomes the main document with your site's URL. Even if we assume you use AMP, package it with signed exchange, and Google SERP displays it then, yeah, your site could appear with no extra network request to your site. The lack of network requests isn't that different to old school HTTP proxies but with better specs and security. AMP has analytics and stuff so if you want to count visits, go do that. I think the problem these technologies are meant to solve is making navigating between pages take under a hundred milliseconds and appear much faster by being able to preview/animate them. That would be good. Yeah, new technology is not without cost and risks but Google turning the web into a walled garden isn't high on my list of risks.

Spivak 7y ago

Right but rather than making a seamless transition between pages they made it a subpage of the parent. Having built-in page previews is actually a useful feature but without the other useful feature of "play video" -> "click video to open page" -> "video continues playing while the rest of the real page renders around it" -> "you are now really on the other page with no connection to the previous page" it seems like the business motivation for this was to embed more content in Google Search while keeping Google branding in the background.

ddalex 7y ago
This. It can allow you to see the google results and navigate from them seamlessly without actually leaving the top-level domain. It effectively captures the entire audience. There will be no more Internet, it's going to be a Google portal (like AOL) with Google keywords, and will "borrow" the content from everybody else.
- co0nsta 7y ago
  How do you define "actually leaving"? Because after navigating to the portal, it occupies the whole viewport and becomes the main document with your site's URL. Even if we assume you use AMP, package it with signed exchange, and Google SERP displays it then, yeah, your site could appear with no extra network request to your site. The lack of network requests isn't that different to old school HTTP proxies but with better specs and security. AMP has analytics and stuff so if you want to count visits, go do that. I think the problem these technologies are meant to solve is making navigating between pages take under a hundred milliseconds and appear much faster by being able to preview/animate them. That would be good. Yeah, new technology is not without cost and risks but Google turning the web into a walled garden isn't high on my list of risks.